Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Help Cleaning Up an Article Please?

InSegment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello-

I am looking to enlist the help of a knowledgeable editor that can help me out with a Wiki article I have recently created.

The article I created was first marked for speedy deletion; I delayed the request using the "hang on" function. After leaving comments on the article's talk page, it came back that the neutrality of the article was being challenged, and it may need to be cleaned-up.

I am not sure what the next step is. At this point, will the article be "cleaned up" by an editor? Or, am I responsible for cleaning up the article before it gets deleted?

I created this article with Wiki policy/guidelines in mind, and I tried to create the article to read as neutral as possible. I am open to changes that make the article more in accordance with Wiki guidelines and would love help from others, but I am not sure who is responsible for making these changes. It would be great if I could receive some feedback from a more experienced Wikipedian!

Please let me know what I need to do to ensure that the article gets cleaned-up rather than deleted entirely.

Thanks!

-Jordan

Jordan.Gilbert (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A friendly editor may come along and help out now that you have asked here, but it is not guaranteed, so your are better off cleaning it up yourself. You should read WP:COI because a quick Google search indicates that you have a conflict. Also take a look at WP:BFAQ, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM and WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where you are the editor! :) In all seriousness, I've had a look at the article you wrote, which has been deleted at this point. I can see that you've put a lot of effort into making it a decent Wikipedia article. However, I don't think the company meets our notability guidelines. "Notable" is Wikipedia shorthand for things that have been the subject of significant published attention in reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, books and that sort of thing, generally). It's really hard to write an article about a company that's both verifiable (everything in it has been published before) and neutral if there isn't much written about it. If you have sources like this, I'd suggest that you create a draft article in your userspace and ask for comments at requests for feedback before moving it to the main site. It's very probable that there aren't such sources; if they don't exist, it's a waste of everyone's time to try to make an article. Of course, depending on your interests, there's a lot of things to do here otherwise. We have a bunch articles on Internet marketing (check the sidebar on that page for more) that could use some attention if you'd like to edit in a field related to your work. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here, on my talk page, or at the help desk. --Danger (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have edited this article and posted it as a user draft, taking Gimme Danger and OrangeMike's (the deleting editor's) comments into consideration. Would any seasoned Wiki editor mind taking a look? The article is located at Insegment.

p.s. sorry if I wasn't supposed to change the marking from "answered" to "unresolved." I'm not 100% clear on the proper ways to communicate with the community here on Wiki.

Comments added on draft talk page. Danger (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Distortions between Right-Wing Terrorism and Left-Wing Terrorism articles

Answered

 – Storm has passed. Danger (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite numerous attempts to bring these two articles in line, this has failed. The persistent efforts of those who will delete even the most well referenced and undisuptable of facts from the "Right-Wing Terrorism" page without any real reason then go on to do the exact opposite on the left-wing terrorism page, filling it with leading words and accusations of mass conspiracy. This is in contrast to the statements on the right-wing, which makes them seem like an incoherent bumbling lot seperate from any actual ideology.

Using phrasing that compared rightwing terrorists to misinterpreting books, while comparing leftiwng activists to people who commited active acts of violence is wholly inappropriate. To even sort of claim these pages are balanced is absurd. Which one is unbalanced is not really important; either the right-wing terrorism page must represent the same tone as the left-wing page, and must abide by the same criteria for inclusion of topics, or the left-wing terrorism page must be waterd down to the level the right-wing is.

In my case, I pointed out attacks on Abortion clinics, which is now absent from the article entierly. To deny that there were right wing terrorist attacks against abortion clinics and providers is simply not a real position. It just isnt. And In my post, I cited references to both conservative and liberal sources (good ones I think) decrying and detailing these actions. And yet it was erased all the same, as if I had done none of it. It wasnt re-written, it wasnt given any sort of real criticism, it was just deleted. And its the same folks continually undoing changes that make the right look bad, while plugging changes that make the left look bad into the leftwing terrorism article.

I cannot stay here with the same fervor these people do and continually play the Revert game. I would appreciate this be looked into, as at this time, its basically undeniable through a simple search of the edit histories to see the clear, unmistakable bias that has been injected into both pages, to make the left-wing look bad and the right-wing look good.

While either one of these pages on its own might seem "neutral" the fact of the matter is, neither of them are, because the same editors are drastically distorting the two pages as far as tone, quality and quantity of information, and overall scope of what is considerd terrorism. For instance, for a good while the left-wing terrorism page had talk about merging it with *two other* left-wing terrorism pages. This while the right-wing terrorism page has barely four paragraphs.

I do not like this sort of bias going on, nor its being ignored by the community at large. Neither page is neutral because they are aspects of one another, and those aspects have been clearly and repeatedly distorted in favor of a single ideology. Please act on this quickly. Of all the sorts of misinformation that may be plugged into Wikipedia, distorting the situation of terrorism, considering its pressing nature, is among the worst sort of partisan bickering and deception.

I request that the editors use haste in examining and bringing these pages into line. all attempts by users to reconcile this have failed. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a few comments, as I don't have time right now to do a thorough review of everything. Chardansearavitriol, I'd like you to consider how your behavior may be impeding progress here. I think it's fairly obvious that Right-wing terrorism could do with a significant expansion to make it as comprehensive as the coverage of Left-wing terrorism. However, accusing other editors of whitewashing and playing games is never helpful. Please play nice, even if you disagree with the actions and opinions of other editors. We, meaning humans, are much more likely to act in response to calm criticism than accusations of wrong-doing.

Another issue is that Wikipedia editing on contentious pages is a rather conservative process, not in the political sense, but in the sense of making change cautiously. It might be helpful for you to make smaller suggestions about specific additions of text or changes in existing text and then allow the discussion to go on for a while. Since it seems like TFD and you are alone there, you might suggest to him making a short message where you both can agree on the wording to relevant WikiProjects to bring in more eyes. (The editors here can attempt to help you, but you will find more expert and interested editors on WikiProjects.) Does this sound reasonable? --Danger (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance and guidance

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Omer Tarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sirs I have been working gradually on this ongoing article/page for some time, concerning an important Pakistani poet in my view. The article has a number of problems which I am working on to improve but I feel it would be unfortunate to delete it. In this regard, further verifiable sources are asked for and although I am giving sources and updating them as I go along, the following queries arise: (a) some of the sources cited are very well known mainstream Pakistani publications such as newspapers, periodicals etc and how should I reflect these in the references/notes? and (b) a number of these articles and reviews were published before the 'net resources were available here, and are consequently not available online, although they are published and archived in print form and are physically verifiable. But how should I reflect/cite these, please? And any suggestions to clean up the article also, please? Thank you for your help Sincerely Khani100 (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Khani100

References do not need to be available online. Wikipedia:Citations#Newspaper articles gives information about citing newspapers and the rest of the page covers other forms of publication. Wikipedia:Citation templates are a good way of adding references. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also encourage you to help create or improve our coverage of well-known Pakistani publications such as newspapers, periodicals etc.; we do our best, but always need more editors in these areas (not just in Urdu, either, but also in Baluchi, Sindhi, etc.). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College

Resolved

 – Danger (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article regarding Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College is a very authentic one. It is about a very well known and famous college of Kolkata, West Bengal, India affiliated under University of Calcutta. The College is registered under the Bar Council of India and University Grants Commission (India) as well. Like other eminent college Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law Colllege also has a very enriched history and set of very popular, well known and established alumni. So it is an request to keep the article intact and free from the threat of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arka1360 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is doubting that it exists, the problem is the tone of the article. It is written like a promotional piece in somewhat flowery language, rather than like an encyclopedia article. Please take a look at WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's also a copyright violation of http://www.jcclawcollege.in/ so tagged for that in addition. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject is notable, but the article was a blatant copyright violation; and would never have been retained anyway, since it was shamelessly promotional. I have brutally trimmed it back to a mere stub, awating replenishment in accordance with our principles of neutral point of view, verifiability, and so forth. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with deleting content. Not sure how to resolve this issue

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Functional medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

Hello.

This is Ron Grisanti. I am medical director for Functional Medicine University. I recently provided documented information to be placed on the key word, "Functional Medicine" I was focused on providing information which would best meet the needs of the public searching for information on functional medicine. I was surprised to discover that my information was completely deleted and replaced with information by a company called Institute of Functional Medicine. I am sad to see this happen.

I thought the purpose of wikipedia was to provide "neutral" information for the sole purpose of education and not used as a self promotion of one company.

What do I need to do so any information I add to wikipedia is not deleted and replaced with the self promotion?

I am at a loss.

Thanks.

Dr. Ron Grisanti www.FunctionalMedicineUniversity.com <contact details redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgrisanti (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to address the issue on the article's talk page (that hasn't had a comment since Nov 2009), and leave an invitation on the other editor's talk page at Talk:Functional medicine for them to join the discussion. Other contributing editors, or indeed anyone else, can discuss whether the entry is spam or a notable institution whose mention is a net benefit to the article. It might take a while, and If all else fails, then come back here. Do avoid, however getting involved in an edit war. Kudpung (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have chopped out the whole of the "Organizations and Educational Programs" section as it was completely unreferenced as to notability and possibly spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible edit war -- advice requested

Resolved

 – Danger (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Oratory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is what appears to be an ongoing edit war on The Oratory School, and I have documented the activity on the article's talk page. The main problem that I see is that the user defending the deleted section of the article doesn't seem to be interested in discussing the problem or adding the necessary references and/or citations required to make it encyclopaedic.

Have I followed the correct steps in this case? Am I right to plan to delete the offending section in another month's time? What should I do if (more likely when) Pfgpowell reinstates it after refusing to fix it up?

Advice appreciated. — PeterBrett (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That section is pretty much unencyclopedic as it stands, it overpowers the rest of the article, and it's self-referential: why would anyone else outside of the school really care about the slang that's developed inside the school unless it's been studied in an academic manner? I'd remove it entirely, myself, but giving the other editor some time to comment is fair as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, it's already been removed three times and reinstated three times, but it's a slow burning edit war between occasional contributors, and the editor in favour of the section doesn't seem interested in discussing it. If I unilaterally removed it now (it's very tempting to do so) what should I do if & when he returns and reverts my removal? — PeterBrett (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it as original research. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll see what happens. Thanks for your input. — PeterBrett (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Table problems

Resolved

 – Danger (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I need someone to look at List of Indian engineering college rankings. This is my first time with a sortable table, and there seems to be something wrong, as the table isn't proper. Can anyone tell me what is wrong? Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it, I think, by making line 2 match lines 1 and 3 more closely. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

City Seal of Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte, Philippines

Stale

 – Requester has apparently lost interest.Danger (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

good day to all! i am a concerned citizen of Cabadbaran City, Agusan del Norte, Philippines. I would like to appeal to you to consider my request to review a page in Wikipedia "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabadbaran,_Agusan_del_Norte".

it is my desire to correct the City Seal which was inadvertently uploaded by someone. The present seal that appears in Wikipedia is one of the entries which won during the logo contest held by the city, but that doesn't mean to be used as the Official Logo(Seal). The adapted seal was the one appearing in the site cabadbarantoday.com which is the official website of Cabadbaran City. Please check this site http://cabadbarantoday.com/cbr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=6 for the seal. i hope that this appeal will be granted. Thank you, The webmaster cabadbarantoday.com

The place to post this would be the discussion page: Talk:Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Rense - unverifiable information

Resolved

 – Danger (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jeff Rense (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I have raised some concerns in this article's discussion area. I cannot edit the article myself as it is locked. No one has responded to my suggestions.

My concern is that much of this article's biographical information has no references. Possibly it was written by the subject himself or his representative; but even if it was, what assurances are there that these items are factually correct?

In addition, there is a statement that does not adhere to Wiki's NPOV, regarding Mr Rense's knowledge of Mario Lanza.

My suggestion is for the statements which are not verifiable to be deleted, and for the statement which does not have a NPOV to be modified.

Please review my suggestions and let me know if they are valid concerns.

Thank you.

LucyJones88 (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are raising some valid points. I made one edit taking out some WP:PEACOCK phrasing about Mario Lanza. The article is semi-protected, meaning you will be able to edit it yourself when you have ten edits to other articles, noticeboards or talk pages.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can't think of any useful edits to make just now, you could try the Lists of common misspellings. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That list is poison! A gateway to terminal Wikipedianism! Danger (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/John of Reading -- John of Reading (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that uncontroversial biographical information (birthdays, employment, etc.) do not have to be referenced by sources independent of the subject. If you find a autobiography, non-promotional information can be sourced to that. I mean, that kind of thing could be fabricated, but why? I looked at Rense's site, but everything on it was flashing at me and I feel significantly crazier now, so I left off looking for a bio. Non-independent or biased sources can also be used to support the opinions or claims of those sources, ie "Rense writes that he ..." Is this helpful? Danger (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit was not admitted

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ibiza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I've tried to add information about Teatro Pereyra in Ibiza in your article about Ibiza. I believe Teatro Pereyra should be mentioned their since Café del Mar and Ibiza Rocks are and these are strict commercial tourist businesses that only open in the summer season whereas Teatro Pereyra is open all year and has an important social funcion on the Island. I believe you ask for published proof ( as if something printed reflects the truth...) so I googled an article of the daily mail : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1216088/Ibiza-holidays-nightclubs-finding-peace-Balearic-island-paradise.html Please add my comments or tell me how to go about. Thank you so much, Eric-Jan Harmsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibizapiano (talk • contribs) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another google search shows that you are closely linked with Teatro Pereyra. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on advertising and conflict of interest; you should not be editing the article directly. You could try adding your suggested text and the source to Talk:Ibiza for other editors to review, taking care to note your involvement with the businesses. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance - Michael Gruneberg page creation

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a first time editor and am attempting to create a page on Michael Gruneberg. I've twice had the page deleted so I have rewritten it at: User:Bobg508/Michael Gruneberg. Would someone be so kind and tell me what I can do so that I can pass all of the criteria and the page will not be deleted again? Bobg508 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:SYMUD and make a request for feedback at WP:FEED. – ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi. All blue words are clickable links to more information. The article was deleted three times. Your new draft as it stands is not a biography, it is a list of an author's publications with little or no information on the person that wrote them. Please try to expand the article to include biographical information. It may help if you look at some of our biographies such as for example Rose Garrard, taking special note of the method for providing sourced references that must be verifiable and formatted according to the instructions for citations. If you need further help, please follow the instructions on the welcome message on your talk page, taking special note of the administrator's warning not to copy information from other sources. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

JOHN M.FLORESCU

Answered

 – Danger (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is Dana Gliga, registered on your website as Dana83art and I want to register a new page on wikipedia and I cannot understand why it can't be registered a whole text on your website. The page that I want to upload is JOHN M.FLORESCU and I want you to help me to tell me which are the procedures in order that the whole text to be published.

Thank you, Wait for your answer, Dana Gliga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana83art (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dana. Welcome to Wikipedia! Please see the new message on your talk page at User talk:Dana83art, and follow the instructions carefully. Remember that all the blue words are clickable links that will take you somewhere - such as to help pages for creating and posting new articles. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to be a little more specific having looked at the draft on your user page: it would appear that the subject meets the notability requirements for people set out at WP:BIO, but at the moment the tone of the draft is far too promotional and reads like an advertisement for him and his achievements. Please take a look at some of the thousands of biographical articles on Wikipedia and I hope you will see what I mean. So, you need to deal with the tone issue and you must cite references to reliable, third party, sources that demonstrate that he is indeed notable. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved the draft from Dana's userpage to a sandbox at User:Dana83art/John Florescu. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone add a link for me to a semi protected page?

Resolved

 – Danger (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Drew Pinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just created a website for the publicist of Dr. Drew Pinsky found Here and Would like a few things edited on his wiki page. Firstly, can you add in his publicists site under the "external links" section. Second Delete the "official message board link" (doesnt exist, and was never official). Thanks, I can provide proof or whatever that I'm associated with him.

-CarlosDaVampire — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosDaVampire (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for posting here. That website wouldn't appear to be something we'd put onto that page per WP:ELNO. If the publicist were herself notable, then it might go on that page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Spy Game lead material

Spy Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor added the following paragraph to the lead of this article:

Spy Game is a true to life composite of many real intelligence operations. Spy Game is more real than fiction and is based on the life of intelligence operative Tom Golden, the son of an Arkansas dirt farmer. Golden was an army intelligence officer assigned to the Central Intelligence Agency Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War. Nathan Muir was Golden’s CIA code name in Southeast Asia, and during his intelligence operations in Indochina. Golden served a distinguished career in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), The Pentagon, and the CIA. He served in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Central and South America. Tony Scott does a great job of presenting the true to life dangers faced by Intelligence Agents in the field and the bureaucratic decisions sometimes made in Washington that are driven by politics.

These are the two citations that follow the material: "[Secret Warriors, Putnam Press 1988 by Steven Emerson]" and "[PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 12/16/1990; KNIGHT RIDDER, 12/18/1990]". The film came out in 2001.

I reverted the editor. Another editor added it back in. I reverted the second editor twice more. After my third reversion, yet another editor (this time an IP) reverted me. On my third reversion, I posted information about all this on the article's Talk page. No one has responded, and the material remains.

The first editor has been registered since March 2010 but has made only a handful of edits, most of them to Spy Game. The second editor has been registered only since February 28, 2011, and has edited only this article. The IP made only the one edit, the reversion. I'm suspicious of the editors themselves, but, more important (to me) is the quality of the lead, which is still compromised.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As the sources are published before the file was released there's simply no way to connect it to the film in such a way, it's original research if anything. I have reverted the text and explained why (my only revert) and will try to contribute to the talk page. If none of the other editors contribute to it the only option is really page protection. And if the accounts are linked the only way to verify would be via an SPI. Rehevkor ✉ 16:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Matthew, hopefully the reversion will stick.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It didn't stick. Yet another IP reverted. Because it's been long enough since I last reverted, I reverted the IP. I'm not real knowledgeable about sockpuppets and how they're investigated, but I decided to create an SPI and let others who are more experienced look into the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Undid revision x by Rehevkor", oh, how much I hate those little words. An SPI is probably the best avenue at this point. It's unlikely the accounts/IPs are unrelated. Rehevkor ✉ 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The SPI confirmed that Jackmartin40 is a sockpuppet of Leorojasxx. Jackmartin40 has been blocked indefinitely, and Leorojasxx has been blocked for a week. As for the IPs, the investigator said: "No comment on the IPs. Ready to close/archive." Not quite sure exactly what that means with respect to the IPs - was an investigation done?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser won't link an IP address to an account. (As a matter of policy, not as a technical inadequacy). If the problem with the IP addresses persists, you might want to request semi-protection for the article at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What then is the purpose of identifying the IP addresses in the SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Summer camp possible advert

Camp Moshava, Wild Rose, WI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article Camp Moshava, Wild Rose, WI is an article about a summer camp. It seems notable and is sourcing everything but somehow has become a WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The main editor states on his talk page that is a past employee. Any help in assessing how to proceed would be appreciated. If you look at it and it seems fine, I'd be appreciative to know. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with Constant Motion (redirect) and Constant Motion (song) (article)

Hello, I am here to request some help with more experienced editors who could help me here. I'm currently expanding the article Systematic Chaos, a studio album from Dream Theater, and relative articles. The problem, it's one of the songs, which is Constant Motion, but this is a redirect to the precedent album, and there is an article which is Constant Motion (song), which really doesn't need a disambiguation. I'm just trying to keep the article but with the title without disambiguation.

Thanks for your time. --Sirius 128 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a mess. Constant Motion (song) is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Presence of Enemies where it's suggested that it doesn't meet the notability criteria at WP:NSONG. I think it might be best to wait for the outcome of that before deciding how to arrange any other pages. You seem to have moved Constant Motion to Constant Motion (song) 1, which isn't a page name that would typically exist here. I think it might be best to undo that move; if the song article at AfD survives then it should be at the undisambiguated title as you suggest, and otherwise the old redirect can be reinstated. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've requested that the page move be undone; this'll preserve the old history. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Review New Article / Format Help

Hello, I am not good at computers, and I am having difficulty formatting the article that I have created. Please assist. the name of the article is: Matt Urmy. thank you,

BK Monroe The Red Light Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedLightLibrary (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, notes have been left on you talk page, both about the article which has been deleted and also about COI, please note that accounts should not be shared amongst people. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hirsch

Martin Hirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the course of the unreferenced BLP, I took a lot of French persons articles in my watchlist. I spotted a problem wht I beleive is a problem with neutrality on this article, and I'm now accused of "exporting a wp:fr edit war". --Anneyh (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

For such a tiny stub, this article is indeed a mess. Your contribution about what he said on TV is jarring, without any context, and overtakes the entire article. Also, my assumption is that your citation to the video website is improper because it's a potential copyright violation. The editor who is reverting your changes is correct, in my view, although there should be a discussion of the issue on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your information and started a discussion on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just a detail, I have not inserted the statement, but reverted it a few times. Thanks for answering my request for help. --Anneyh (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to move Spark(fire), always restarting after failing to get a consensus to move

Over on Talk:Spark_(fire), there have been five failed attempts to get a consensus to rename the page, within four months. Every time an attempt fails, yet another attempt starts. All but one of these have been started by the same editor. The sixth attempt has just started. This all seems a bit silly. Can it be curtailed somehow? Ernestfax^Talk 19:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Two closed debates ending in no consensus for the move - the last one yesterday. The only way to curtail this is for the concerned editors to simply move on to more constructive work and stop fanning the fire. --Kudpung (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Groan! Pun warning next time please! – ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung can't help it. He's just got that fire in his belly for improving the 'pedia. Danger (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks for your sparky comments and for not flaming me Ernestfax^Talk 08:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a total mischaracterization of the situation. There was one long discussion, split into multiple categories, ending with a move proposal that failed, with many of the oppose votes proposing alternate options. A second proposal was just made which basically no one agreed with, and now discussion is continuing. Some editors seem to insist that, since the first proposal did not pass (with the closer encouraging a continued discussion) that all discussion should end and all the concerns raised by both support and oppose !voters should be ignored. Rather than try to stifle discussion, I'd encourage anyone knowledgable about science to come participate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what is inconsistent with WP:CON here. The discussion has been civil and informative and has resulted in at least partial consensus and progress in the disambiguation of spark. The closing admin of the first move request said "This topic appears to be the primary topic, and if consensus is established, it may be moved to Spark." Per the admin's suggestion, I proposed the move to spark. [1] There was a strong consensus against the move and, more importantly, a strong consensus that there is no primary topic.[2] SInce there was consensus on no primary topic, I was able to add content to electric spark that might otherwise have gone into a primary topic article.[3] This allowed yet another editor to clean up the spark DAB page.[4] There are content and naming issues that remain at spark (fire), but significant consensus has been achieved on several issues and there has been improvement in the content of the spark articles. Rather than being told to move on I think that Yaksar should be thanked for helping to build the consensus that we have achieved so far and encouraged to continue to participate in useful consensus building discussions. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, I'm sure Ernestfax has a good reason for wanting to stop all discussion other than there being too much of it, which I'm very curious to hear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion was plural. I have great respect for all the editors concerned, but I think this debate over the name needs a pause. Kudpung (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Congregation Beth Shalom Rodfe Zedek

The link to the Steven Lloyd on the Congregation Beth Shalom Rodfe Zedek page is the wrong Stephen Lloyd. The correct Stephen Lloyd is an architect practicing in Brattleboro, VT and Chester, CT. He presently does not have a website so the link should be removed. Thank you. Signed, Stephen Lloyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.92.121 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have edited the article for you. Feel free to be bold and correct errors yourself in future. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion on personal entires in Silverpoint article

Silverpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to have been hijacked by two living artists (Susan Schwalb--AKA Bluehoon, and Tom Mazzullo--AKA Marscapony) who have each entered quite a bit of self-promotional information and personal links into the page. I am not comfortable with the editing rules, and there seems to be a bit of rivalry on the discussion page. It is quite different than the articles on watercolor, or oil painting for example. 128.190.125.2 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)amy

I removed a lot of WP:COATRACK and WP:PEACOCK material.Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation issues

I've never posted here before so this might not be the right place to do this, but I seem to be having trouble formatting references in Mechanics' Union of Trade Associations. I formatted the first two references correctly, but when I tried to use the second reference twice (by using the second time) it didn't work and gave me some red error. I checked the Help page it directed me too, but I still couldn't figure it out even after trying to correct it numerous times. If anyone could take a look at the page and see what the problem is, that would be greatly appreciated. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done You didn't use " marks in one of the ref names. I simplified the ref name too. Rehevkor ✉ 20:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!!! --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Steps to take with a non-responsive editor

I mostly edit MMA related articles as a part of WP:MMA and we are having a problem with an editor that makes multiple disruptive edits. S/he has never posted an edit summary or anything on a talk page and I'm wondering what the proper course of action (and timeline) would be at this point. I've looked through WP:dispute resolution but most of the solutions require some kind of dialog. Thanks! ZephyrFox (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing who the editor is or some links to the offending edits, there is little we can do here. Try addressing the problem on the talk page(s) of the affected article(s) and inviting the editor to take part in the discussion. There are also template requests and/or warnings that you can place on an editor's talk page, including reminders for edit summaries. Use with discretion - friendly personal messages are often better. --Kudpung (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Further research reveals this report. When warning users, it helps to use the incremental warnings at reasonable periods within the same month, to enable the editor to read and react. A final Level 4 warning will generally alert the administrators. --Kudpung (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Game_Masters_Tournament

The links to ALL arcades on this page are "dead" EXCEPT for the link for "Video Paradise" in the 1983 list of arcades. You might want to delete the dead links. Again, the link for "Video Paradise" is valid and goes to a web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.7.135 (talk • contribs) 01:43, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

We typically don't delete dead links.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vinnie Vincent

Vinnie Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed that the section "The Vinnie Vincent Model Guitar" had some bad grammar, words in all-caps, etc, so I cleaned it up. In the process, I noticed that the entire section was unsourced and unverifiable. I removed most of it but left a few sentences. The page's original author, DAworDisDAword101 is apparently watching the page and continuously reverts the changes. I tried to be polite in encouraging him to discuss the reverts on the article's talk page, but he doesn't participate in the discussion. I added the "article ownership" warning to his talk page and tried to be polite there, as well. I've re-done the edit to the article a second time, but won't do it again, because I have no interest in an edit war. In any case, the majority of the entire article (not just the section I edited) appears to be original research. LesPaul75_talk 18:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Correction - I didn't mean to say "page's original author"... I believe he might be the original author of that particular section. LesPaul75_talk 18:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on the editor's talk page and am keeping the article on my watchlist. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I need help

Hi. It appears that I am getting banned from contributing to admin areas, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic bans for Porchcrop. See my recent talk page discussions and they say that I lack in understanding the policies and guidelines. I need help in knowing what I need to improve. Is any of you willing to help me? Thank you so much for your help. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Porchcrop. I've had a glance at your edits and the comments that have been made at ANI and the editor review. Lack of understanding is something that is fixable - but it's not something that you will be able to sort overnight. Whilst becoming an administrator is a possibility some time in the future, I think it is unlikely with your past record and it's something I think you should forget about. With that in mind, I do see a lot of enthusiasm, and would be willing to mentor you. If you'd be willing, I'd suggest you run through my adoption school, focus on changing your pie chart to be more red. I believe you could be a great editor. Worm^TT 09:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good advice Worm. --Kudpung (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Toque snuff ltd keeps getting deleted?

Hi, I have just had to put our snuff company back on the list of UK snuff companies under the heading 'snuff' someone keeps deleting Toque snuff from the list. Is there anything we can do to stop this malicious act?

Hasn't Toque snuff the same right to be listed as all the other UK snuff companies?

Regards

Roderick Lawrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toquesnuff (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

User now blocked as a spam user name.. the block and COI notice should suffice to explain for the most part. Notability might be well worth a read also. No one has much of a "right" to anything they want on Wikipedia. Rehevkor ✉ 18:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, I don't see why any of the Snuff manufacturers on the Snuff article are notable. Will raise at the talk page. Worm^TT 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and made some edits, and replied on the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unrelevant articles

The article G.j. Alexandrie is in several languages (not english) but isn't relevant or accurate at all. Can someone check it out and maybe delete it? Thank you --83.226.108.74 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia has its own procedures and processes; you will have to address this at the Wikipedias in question, not here in the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Correcting abusive entry

The current wikipedia entry on gang stalking has been illegitimised and locked so as to prevent redaction.

Harassment of this nature has been verified in recent court cases including that of James Walbert, who was recently recognised by u.s. courts as having five subcutaneous implants above the neck. Within the last week, a presidential bio-ethics committee was appointed to issue a report to President Obama on gang stalking by the end of this year. These facts are verifiable (see below).

The current "article" on gang stalking illegitimises it by using quotes around the term, and by using vague and insinuating language relegating reports as "examples of belief systems" instead of anything pertinent to objective reality.

The article I proposed for gang stalking uses neutral language that does not intend to assert or deny the authenticity of these reports, unlike the preexistent content which intends for the term to be pertinent to imagined phenomenon only.

This is my submitted article. More information follows below.

Gang stalking

Gang stalking, group stalking, community stalking, cause stalking or gaslighting refers to alleged coordinated harassment often involving electronic and psychological methods such as HSS speakers and classical conditioning. These activities are difficult to trace or verify, leaving few precedents for public credibility outside of cases such as the electronic harassment of James Walbert.

Anecdotal accounts generally depict gang stalking as a widespread, often international conspiracy of unclear intent, associated with counterintelligence programs such as MKULTRA and CoIntelPro. Critics propose that reports of gang stalking are rooted in psychological issues catalyzed by the exchange of information on the internet.

As you can see, this proposed entry is significantly less biased towards the assertation that reports of gang stalking can only be attributed to mental illness and is overwhelmingly more sympathetic to victims of a crime that is being reported with increasing frequency and verifiability.

The case of James Walbert is documented in many places online, despite a lack of media acknowledgement. A cursory examination of the issue will reveal that the matter is certainly not trivial and that public awareness of these pernicious crimes would prevent such occasions from transpiring so easily.

Video from the recent bio-ethics committee hearings - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0yKaE6Jy1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjcLRIFVRO0

The personal doubts of the wikipedia editors in these matters must be put aside, and a more neutral stance must be taken in this entry when the increasing amount of evidence indicates that these events are actually taking place. There are thousands of reports of gang stalking online, not hundreds, and the truth of the matter is not to be decided by click-happy wikipedia editors.

My proposed article is wholly unbiased towards why these events are taking place and whether they are authentic or imagined, outside of the case of Mr. Walbert, which is verifiable as far as the u.s. legal system is concerned. The denigration heaped on the subject in the current article can be offensive to people who may have had to endure these transgressions.

At any rate, the concept of gang stalking is so widespread in this culture that it does not need to be illegitimised as language. We do not honour the word "small" and refute the word "little" because they both mean the same thing. It is time for the cultural redaction being enacted in the maintenance of this article to cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxos (talk • contribs) — Xoxos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You need to sort this out on the talk page. Remember to assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The page is protected because of disputes - there needs to be a consensus on the talk page before this can be lifted. I see you have no edits there, this should be your first step: Talk:Stalking. Is the core of the issue is grammar and phrasing then it shouldn't be too difficult to come to a consensus.

I'm not sure how I can help you here beyond that, are you complaining about Wikipedia editors being in some way biased? Perhaps you could start a request for comment, there're also some steps in WP:Dispute resolution you could try, but only after you have drained all avenues at the article talk page. Are you asking for someone to come along and back you up? In that case, the issue seems too ambiguous for anyone to just wade in without some knowledge of the subject already. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the well wishes, I will certainly need them :) I am not sure that a consensus is possible. eg.

Phil Bridger (remove delusional conspiracy theory yet again) Phil Bridger (Once again, please take this to the talk page - previous consensus has been against including these delusions Phil Bridger (revert addition of loopy conspiracy theory "cause stalking" content -

I do not have Phil Bridger's experience with editing wikipedia and expect that I will be outmanoeuvred at every turn. Moreover, though I am not able to prove it, I would not be surprised in the slightest to find that this topic is watched by special interest groups who already have a large body of active editors to ensure that this topic does not express views they find unfavourable, which is why I am appealing to whatever authority on wikipedia there is to help to approach objectivity in this matter instead of wasting my time struggling with these offensive censors in their territory.

If no one is able to interject on the grounds I have already presented, I will pursue the protocol for request for comment as recommended.

I agree re: ambiguity. We have two sides to this argument: either these reports are in part factual, as verified by Mr. Walbert's case, or they are delusional, as suggested by an article in the New York Times. Perhaps the u.s. courts are not equal to the opinions of the New York Times journalists on the matter of reality? Especially since both have vested interests, I will once again request that an entry that is not biased against the claims of gang stalking be adopted, thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxos (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Belief that a consensus cannot be gained without even trying won't get you very far here. You should discuss it on the talk page then if that fails I provided some alternative venues for you. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted page assistance (copy of message to RHaworth)

I am contacting you in hopes that you can further explain and advise on a recently deleted page that I posted, titled "Myles L. Berman" on 3/6/11 by RHaworth.

In creating the article, I tried to avoid solicitation designed to promote Mr. Berman or his law firm. Rather, I attempted to demonstrate the notability and achievements in his expertise through biographical information and works of accomplishments. Utilizing the model article of a fellow attorney (which can currently be viewed on Wikipedia), I devised the content with reliable sources of information provided for verification.

It appears that as a new page, the patrol division deleted it due to "unambiguous advertising or promotion." Can you please offer any guidance on this reasoning and the following questions? 1. How come some articles on an individual or company are considered "masquerading articles" and deleted, while others are not and left posted? 2. What constitutes notability and the legitimacy of an individual or commercial entity? 3. Is there any way to recreate a page for either Mr. Berman or his firm without it being considered advertising or promotion?

I am passionately working on social media for our company and was suggested at a recent conference to take part in Wikipedia, as it is such a large media reference globally. If there is any information or advice you could offer in regards to posting a successful, acceptable article, I would greatly appreciate it.

Myleslberman (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Evelyn Hirshberg, Office Manager, Law Offices of Myles L. Berman

The best advice I can give you is that you should work your way down the FAQ page for Organizations. This will lead you through the Wikipedia policies on advertising, conflict of interest, and how Wikipedia pages are written about businesses. You will find it very difficult to create a Wikipedia page on behalf of your company.

More bad news: since your chosen user name matches your company name, it fails the user name policy and is likely to be blocked. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

Shmuley Boteach repeated vandalism through the years - its been approved as is by multiple users and I'd like to request a block/lock and dont know how to do so. Please advise and assist ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll watch that page to see what happens next, and act if necessary. I have the necessary admin tools to do a block or a protect, if that's what's needed.

In other news: are you the same person as User:Jonathanglick13? I would advise that you stick to one account for editing. --Deryck C. 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bio on Richard Poirier

I revised the page on Richard Poirier that contained an inaccurate statement that Richard Poirier..."he was Marius Bewley". However, on 7 March 2011, a Mr. Charles Matthews "Moorlock" revised my change to reflect his previous script as of 21 Feb 2011. That version is not accurate. How do we resolve this issue. I want to correct this factual error and also post a new accurate bio on Marius Eugene Bewley that will provide a more comprehensive, accurate description of him and his achievements. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, Bruce Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.159.201 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to the article in question, [5] added the text "NOT MARIUS EUGENE BEWLEY.", at first glance this would not appear to be productive, and was reverted. Your best bet to address this would be to go to the article talk page Talk:Richard Poirier and explain your edit(s). Remember if you want to update this article, you should provide reliable sources to verify your editions. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've notified Charles Matthews, who reverted your edit (and also inserted in the first place what you said was wrong) to participate in this discussion. --Deryck C. 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On second read at the disputed article, I think I've come to the following conclusions:

1. There was no confusion in the original article. The original version said "He was Marius Bewley Professor of American and English Literature emeritus", which meant "He held a position named after Marius Bewley", not "He is Marius Bewley". The objection that Bruce Johnson (98.246.159.201) raised is, therefore, invalid.
2. The rest of the article seems to be accurate, according to this this post , and this external link from the article. However, inline citations will be helpful, to help prevent future disputes. --Deryck C. 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summary statement "mistakenly stated Richard Poirier and Marius Eugene Bewley were the same individuals" seemed to be a simple misconception. Stating that someone is the John Doe Professor is not stating they are John Doe at all: it is just common usage in academia. Obviously the form of words can be avoided by circumlocution, but I didn't see that it had to be. The comment would have been better placed on Talk:Richard Poirier. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the grammatical change clarifies the respective positions each individual held. My understanding is that Marius was a professor in the Department of English. Richard was the department chairman and a colleague of Marius. When you say Richard "held" Marius position I think it's a confusing statement. When Marius died his position (by his name) evaporated. Richard may have still been a professor in the English Department and, perhaps, still chairman; but, I don't believe he served in a "position" that retained Maris Bewley's name. Rutgers did establish the Marius Bewley Fund to recognize outstanding student coursework as an honorarium. The language should be simple and clear to avoid confusion. BTW, since there are websites such as Feebase and others that have posted excerpts from Wikipedia, how does one correct or clarify all these inaccurate statements?

In order to provide some clarity to this situation, I will prepare a bio on Marius and post it. That way there will be some more definite information on Marius...if and when someone posts a search for his name.

Bruce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.159.201 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's apparently a named professorship, of the kind common to all serious universities in the English-speaking world. Are you saying there is no such professorship for Richard Poirier to hold? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the argument that if one person is ever confused by something, then it is "confusing". But I don't accept it. I mean, here it is in the New York Times of 1979: "Richard Poirier is the Marius Bewley Professor of English at Rutgers". The complaint seems querulous. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nestle Chunky Candy Bars

I am curious as to whether the Nestle Chunky Candy Bars come in minatures? Who could I contact to request this? Nestle.com doesn't really comment on Chunky Bars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.176.241 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6.9 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--Orange Mike | Talk 03:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Android article Android_(operating_system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

The user User:Markpb91 is adding content to the Android article that is npov, while removing any positive references in the sections he edits. I accidently pressed 'Save Page' instead of 'Show Preview' and cleared out the section, and got a warning about an edit war, so I'm not going to edit the page until I'm sure I won't get blocked, but when he adds negative statements and I revert them, he immediately adds them back, and I'm unable to get any response from the talk page. He adds (and re-adds when I remove them to create a npov section) words to avoid such as 'unfortunately' and 'called the fragment of all things' etc., and the entirety of the Usage Share section (which he renamed Fragmentation without reason) is nothing but pro-Apple and anti-Android quotes, while he removed a quote from a developer saying that the fragmentation problem wasn't as big of a problem. From his edits of the Mac OS X article, it's clear (in my opinion) that he has a pro-Apple and anti-Android slant, and it's being reflected in his edits. My attempts to achieve a npov are being reverted by him and now I'm unable to edit the page for fear of being blocked, and I'm unsure of what to do. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You were completely in the right... Markpb91 has been warned with a level 4 warning, as I have an extremely low tolerance for single purpose accounts that are doing nothing but trying to promote their personal views on this site. If you have any other questions let me know. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and homosexuality

Christianity and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a question of neutrality in the Christianity and homosexuality article. I feel there may be a conflict of interest on the part editors involved in the article. This being such a contentious issue I feel it begs the assistance of a neutral third party to both resolve the neutrality dispute and if the consensus is that this article lacks a NPOV perhaps a neutral third party to help guide this article to Wikipedia standards. Thank You. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not how conflict of interest works. You are going after Carey for being a gay Christian, no? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Whistleblowing

Hi there, My post in whistleblowing was removed as it was considered 'promotional'

I work for a registered charity that gives free legal advice to anyone in the UK who wants to blow the whistle on something at work, but who is unsure about how to go about this

The awareness of our free help is low and this seems a simple way to help

There is no commercial gain from quoting our existence and phone number, its is a straightforward user benefit, and I would like to request that the post is reinstated

Gary Brown Public Concern at Work 0207 404 6609